Unit 5 - Essays - Internal Migration Flashcards
(7 cards)
‘Distance is the most important factor influencing the type of internal migration.’ With the aid of examples, how far do you agree?
Paragraph 1 – Intra-urban (London):
Short distance (5–20 km) within a city.
Age split: young adults (20–35) move inward for jobs/lifestyle; families (30–50) move outward for space/schools.
Movement influenced by housing prices, air quality, transport links, and gentrification.
Paragraph 2 – Rural to urban (Brazil and UK):
LIC/MIC (Brazil): Long distances (~2,400 km); mostly young adults (15–30), often men.
HIC (UK – Isle of Purbeck to London): ~200 km; younger professionals (18–35).
Driven by lack of jobs, education, and services in rural areas.
Paragraph 3 – Urban to rural (London to Church Stretton):
Medium-long distance (~260 km).
30–55 age group (remote workers, families, retirees).
Influenced by remote work, lifestyle change, affordability, and environmental quality.
Paragraph 4 – Role of life stage and opportunity:
Younger people seek opportunity; older migrants seek quality of life.
Life events (e.g. children, retirement, new jobs) shape the type and direction of internal migration.
Conclusion – Clear Judgement:
Age and life stage are the most influential factors, closely followed by distance and opportunity availability. Migration type reflects both demographic profile and personal circumstances.
‘The main impact of rural-urban movements is to create areas of poor quality housing.’ With the aid of examples, to what extent do you agree with this view?
Paragraph 1 – Source (London):
Some positives: Reduced service pressure, housing availability.
Negatives: Loss of professionals and families → brain drain.
Potential decline in urban community identity and demand for local schools/businesses.
Paragraph 2 – Destination (Church Stretton):
Economic growth via local spending and new businesses.
More young families rejuvenate ageing population.
Service retention (schools, bus routes) becomes more viable.
Paragraph 3 – Emerging issues in rural areas:
Rising property prices displace local youth (gentrification).
Increased pressure on schools, GPs, waste systems.
Cultural differences between newcomers and long-term residents.
Paragraph 4 – Environmental and lifestyle impacts:
Car use rises due to limited transport → congestion/pollution.
Some loss of rural character as new housing is built.
Conclusion – Clear Judgement:
Benefits and drawbacks are felt on both ends, but receiving rural areas often experience more disruption due to scale, capacity, and character change.
‘Urban-rural migration has a greater impact than rural-urban migration on the receiving/destination areas.’ With the aid of examples, how far do you agree with this view?
Paragraph 1 – Source (Ceará, Brazil & Isle of Purbeck, UK):
Brazil: Youth and labour loss, ageing population, abandoned farmland.
UK: Brain drain, service closures, youth outmigration.
Some positives: remittances and new gender roles (esp. Brazil).
Paragraph 2 – Destination (São Paulo and London):
Housing crisis: São Paulo sees favelas; London faces unaffordability and overcrowding.
Overstretched services: education, healthcare, transport affected.
Informal employment (Brazil), and gentrification (UK) common.
Paragraph 3 – Social and environmental stress:
Brazil: crime, gang violence, environmental hazards from illegal settlements.
UK: Tensions due to gentrification, greenbelt pressure, and infrastructure demands.
Paragraph 4 – Spatial variation:
In Brazil, rural–urban migrants often settle in flood-prone or hillside areas.
In UK, high housing demand raises rents in inner-city zones and pushes some further out.
Conclusion – Clear Judgement:
The greatest impact is on urban destinations, especially in LICs, where housing and service provision can’t keep pace with rapid migration.
‘Push factors are more important than pull factors as causes of rural to urban migration.’ With the aid of examples, how far do you agree with this statement?
Paragraph 1 – LIC/MIC (Brazil):
Push: drought, poor soils, lack of jobs/services.
Pull: industry and services in São Paulo; better wages, infrastructure, and networks.
Long distances covered by youth, especially men.
Paragraph 2 – HIC (UK):
Push: seasonal tourism jobs, high house prices, poor public transport in Purbeck.
Pull: London offers jobs in media, finance, education; cultural attractions and transport options.
Paragraph 3 – Differences in scale and informality:
Brazil sees mass migration and informal housing (favelas).
UK has smaller-scale, regulated migration but suffers from housing shortages and high rents.
Paragraph 4 – Life stage and education:
In Brazil, basic survival and job access drive movement.
In UK, higher education, career prospects, and cultural life are bigger motivators.
Conclusion – Clear Judgement:
While both contexts show push and pull dynamics, economic survival is the dominant force in LICs/MICs, while lifestyle and career progression matter more in HICs.
‘Age is the most important factor influencing internal migration.’ With the aid of examples, how far do you agree?
Paragraph 1 – Age as a key driver of internal migration:
Young adults (18–35) dominate rural–urban migration in both HICs and LICs (e.g. Ceará to São Paulo; Isle of Purbeck to London)
Intra-urban migration in London sees young professionals moving inward for work and lifestyle
Families aged 30–50 move outward seeking safer environments and schools.
Paragraph 2 – Other important drivers:
Employment opportunities and wage differentials are powerful pull factors (São Paulo, London)
Push factors like poor infrastructure or housing (rural Brazil, inner London) also heavily influence decisions
Paragraph 3 – Influence of life stage and family needs:
Families often move based on schooling or space (e.g. London to Church Stretton)
Retirees (65+) move for lifestyle changes and tranquillity, not economic reasons
Paragraph 4 – Variation by context:
In LICs, migration is more economically driven; in HICs, age interacts with job access, quality of life, or education.
Policies and infrastructure (e.g. Crossrail in London) also shape movement beyond age
Conclusion – Clear Judgement:
Age is a significant factor because it aligns with key life transitions, but it is not the sole cause. Economic opportunity, infrastructure, and life stage often outweigh age alone, especially in LICs.
With the aid of examples, how far do you agree that it is the number of rural-urban migrants that cause the greatest problem for receiving/destination areas?
Paragraph 1 – Problems caused by high numbers (LICs/MICs):
São Paulo sees daily rural migrants, resulting in favelas, poor sanitation, and illegal settlements
Over 22 million people in São Paulo metro: urban planning cannot keep pace.
Paragraph 2 – Scale isn’t the only issue:
Lack of infrastructure and planning causes service strain, not just numbers (e.g. Lebanon with 1.5M Syrians, São Paulo slums)
Informal housing and unregulated land use intensify problems.
Paragraph 3 – HIC example shows problems at lower scale:
London’s population rise from rural areas and intra-urban migration causes housing shortages, gentrification, and transport pressure
Even fewer migrants can stress systems if planning and policy are poor.
Paragraph 4 – Variation across time and space:
Church Stretton (urban–rural) faces gentrification and service pressure despite low migrant numbers
Rural–urban issues arise from rate of influx, not just absolute numbers.
Conclusion – Clear Judgement:
High numbers do worsen problems, especially in LICs with limited capacity, but underlying urban planning failures and resource limits often matter more than scale alone.
‘Residential segregation is the main impact of intra-urban population movements.’ With the aid of examples, to what extent do you agree with this view?
Paragraph 1 – Evidence of segregation (London case):
Movement from inner boroughs (e.g. Tower Hamlets) to outer boroughs due to rising rents and gentrification causes socioeconomic segregation
Low-income groups pushed out to areas like Barking or Bexley, often lacking services.
Paragraph 2 – Other major impacts:
Pressure on outer suburb services: school oversubscription, healthcare demand, rising house prices
Inner-city renewal leads to displacement, loss of affordable housing.
Paragraph 3 – Environmental and transport impacts:
Urban sprawl increases congestion and pollution in outer boroughs.
Greenbelt pressure due to intensification of suburban development
Paragraph 4 – Social and cultural changes:
Shifts in community identity; long-standing residents replaced by high-income newcomers.
Increased income and ethnic diversity in outer boroughs may also lead to tension.
Conclusion – Clear Judgement:
Residential segregation is one key impact, but not the main one. Service pressure, environmental change, and displacement are often more immediate and widespread consequences.
